HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 324 of 2025 (S/S) Radhe Shyam ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to all for the record of the case and declare the impugned notice / order dated 20-12-2024 (copy Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition) issued by Respondent No.4 along with consequential order of oral termination, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently quash the same. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue with his service on the post occupied by him since 2015 and pay him all consequential benefits. iii. Issue any suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv. Award the cost of the writ petition to the Petitioner” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the impugned communication dated 20.12.2024, issued by the respondent no.3 is stigmatic and his services have been dispensed with by this order. He would submit that before issuance of the communication dated 20.12.2024, no inquiry was conducted. 4. In fact, the impugned communication dated 20.12.2024, which is Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, does not, in any manner, dispensed with the services of the petitioner. It has only directed the respondent no.5, who is a service provider that the petitioner should mend his ways and the petitioner should work properly. It does not give any cause to the petitioner to file any petition. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to entertain the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 5. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.03.2025 Sanjay